Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
George Ford

My new theory on Bigfoots.

54 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

The black bear range maps I could find (including National Geographic) showed quite a limited range in the US. It surprised me. And as far as Salt Fork, sightings of bear in the entire county, are like 1 a year, if that, but not even confirmed.

Edited by QuiteContrary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

Someone might have already thought of this, but I just thought that there might be an unknown species of bear living in the USA. They look almost identical to normal bears and that is why no one suspects anything. The major difference is that they can stand up and walk about on their hind legs for long periods of time. This is why people think they have seen a bigfoot, but in fact they have seen a walking bear.

If not an unknown species of bear then a small group that have learnt to walk. It is possible as small groups of animals sometimes learn a new trait that only the group they are in know about. Like certain apes using sticks to get insects out of holes.

Usually a theory is based on some empirical evidence. Do you have any?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The State of OHio for one. Ever hear of Salt Lake State Park in Ohio? A big "Hot Spot" that hosts a bigfoot conference every year.

If the animal was real, one would expect there to be some evidence at a "hot spot."

But there never is any.

Because bigfoot is not real.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the animal was real, one would expect there to be some evidence at a "hot spot."

But there never is any.

Because bigfoot is not real.

Yeah, but making a little dough while fooling the masses can be irresistible for some.

"Hot spot" for making money and winning converts, more likely?

They got'em everywhere.

Yes, bestowing an area with the illustrious title isn't quite as stringent as getting a place put on the National Registry however. It just has to look "squatchy", I guess. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Looks Squatchy" You have to wonder what exactly they mean by that, I suppose any heavily wooded area can be considered to "look Squatchy" but then one of my co-workers houses can too. Honestly, you need hip waders to go in there.

Mind you, I do think the show on Animal Planet has some merit because the more I watch it the more I realize these guys really don't want to actually find a Bigfoot. It's about making a TV show in the guise of looking for Bigfoot. If they find the critter, then suddenly they don't have a show any more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Looks Squatchy" You have to wonder what exactly they mean by that, I suppose any heavily wooded area can be considered to "look Squatchy" but then one of my co-workers houses can too. Honestly, you need hip waders to go in there.

Mind you, I do think the show on Animal Planet has some merit because the more I watch it the more I realize these guys really don't want to actually find a Bigfoot. It's about making a TV show in the guise of looking for Bigfoot. If they find the critter, then suddenly they don't have a show any more.

That would be awesome if one stepped out of the bush and they all crapped their pants!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

They claim to be a "no kill" group, what would be even funnier is if a Bigfoot jumped out at them and they all suddenly drew guns and opened fire. I'm guessing they'd edit out that part and make some other silly claim like they found it obviously killed by a hunter with forty-seven pistol rounds in it.

Now my warped sense of humor is kicking in, they have a bigfoot costume they use for some of the opening sequences. One wonders if they were shooting some stuff for the show and some redneck good old boy shot the guy in the costume. "OMG! You just shot BOBO! The guy walks up, "Aw hell, was this one your pet?"

:P

Edited by keninsc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They claim to be a "no kill" group, what would be even funnier is if a Bigfoot jumped out at them and they all suddenly drew guns and opened fire. I'm guessing they'd edit out that part and make some other silly claim like they found it obviously killed by a hunter with forty-seven pistol rounds in it.

Now my warped sense of humor is kicking in, they have a bigfoot costume they use for some of the opening sequences. One wonders if they were shooting some stuff for the show and some redneck good old boy shot the guy in the costume. "OMG! You just shot BOBO! The guy walks up, "Aw hell, was this one your pet?"

:P

I think anyone in BF costume would be safe. Its been well described how all hunters are afraid to shoot the bigfoots they encounter. I don't see it as a trend that will be broken soon. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The truth is I don't know how I might react, on the one hand, I've known two guys who didn't shoot even though the experience scared them so badly they never hunted again, whatever it was they saw had a very profound impact on them. On the other hand, if you want to establish that Bigfoots are indeed real then the only thing science is going to accept is a body or a skeleton. So shooting one can be justified.

Personally, unless I'm somehow moved to pass on the creature or have no means to take it cleanly, I don't see the issue, but that's me and I'm really no different than anyone else. My biggest concern would be to be sure I didn't shoot a guy in a monkey suit or a hunter in a Ghillie suit. Jeez, I know of many instances where hunters didn't make sure they identified their intended targets and either shot a human or almost shot another human. I have no experience in what a Bigfoot looks like but I've been told they look more human than ape, this could be the reason the two guy passed on the shot.

Now I suppose we can debate the finer points of morality, but it's going to be up to the individual to make the call when and if the opportunity arises. Then too, suppose I do take a Bigfoot and it lives up to the supposed legend that it's between seven and nine feet tall and between 600 and 100o pounds, how am I going to get that sucker out of the woods? I'd likely, remove the head, hands and feet immediately then return for the rest of the carcass with sufficient help or equipment to get it out.

Edited by keninsc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The truth is I don't know how I might react, on the one hand, I've known two guys who didn't shoot even though the experience scared them so badly they never hunted again, whatever it was they saw had a very profound impact on them. On the other hand, if you want to establish that Bigfoots are indeed real then the only thing science is going to accept is a body or a skeleton. So shooting one can be justified.

Personally, unless I'm somehow moved to pass on the creature or have no means to take it cleanly, I don't see the issue, but that's me and I'm really no different than anyone else. My biggest concern would be to be sure I didn't shoot a guy in a monkey suit or a hunter in a Ghillie suit. Jeez, I know of many instances where hunters didn't make sure they identified their intended targets and either shot a human or almost shot another human. I have no experience in what a Bigfoot looks like but I've been told they look more human than ape, this could be the reason the two guy passed on the shot.

Now I suppose we can debate the finer points of morality, but it's going to be up to the individual to make the call when and if the opportunity arises. Then too, suppose I do take a Bigfoot and it lives up to the supposed legend that it's between seven and nine feet tall and between 600 and 100o pounds, how am I going to get that sucker out of the woods? I'd likely, remove the head, hands and feet immediately then return for the rest of the carcass with sufficient help or equipment to get it out.

You probably wouldn't have time to do anything once you shot your 'squatch. Chances are the "Dead Bigfoot Recovery Team" (comprised of other bigfoots who instinctually know when one of their own dies so they can quickly respond and hide the body) would be on scene within minutes and you'd probably have a fight on your hands to keep any part of your deadsquatch.

They are a crack team. After all - we don't have a single dead bigfoot at all, and I'm sure its because of their tireless efforts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OMG! Is that what they're called? LOL! :tsu: I'll have to remember that one.

I know a fellow from another board many years ago who told me that I should carry a chain so that the remaining body can't be carried away by whatever. However, if I was able to take the first Bigfoot, then the recovery team won't be a huge problem, unless they are armed. Once to get past the first kill, the rest get easier to make.

.....but then I'd have all those extra bodies to deal with. :gun:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OMG! Is that what they're called? LOL! :tsu: I'll have to remember that one.

I know a fellow from another board many years ago who told me that I should carry a chain so that the remaining body can't be carried away by whatever. However, if I was able to take the first Bigfoot, then the recovery team won't be a huge problem, unless they are armed. Once to get past the first kill, the rest get easier to make.

.....but then I'd have all those extra bodies to deal with. :gun:

Its like killing flies mein freund, once you bag one, 10 show up to the funeral. You'd run out of bullets before you killed all the squatches on the DBRT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Sounds like they might start parachuting in to help out.

Oh crap, I just a visual of the Wookie Army in that last "Star Wars" coming after me.

Edited by keninsc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On the other hand, if you want to establish that Bigfoots are indeed real then the only thing science is going to accept is a body or a skeleton.

That's not true at all. We catalog and describe new species all the time without killing them. I heard we just found a new species of shark, and I don't think we had to kill one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like they might start parachuting in to help out.

Oh crap, I just a visual of the Wookie Army in that last "Star Wars" coming after me.

Thats the great thing about imagining Bigfoot scenarios - one pretend thing is just as valid as the next, so you can really get far flung and the level of fantasy stays pretty consistent. ;)

Unless we veer off into hyrax territory. I draw the line there. :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The truth is I don't know how I might react, on the one hand, I've known two guys who didn't shoot even though the experience scared them so badly they never hunted again, whatever it was they saw had a very profound impact on them. On the other hand, if you want to establish that Bigfoots are indeed real then the only thing science is going to accept is a body or a skeleton. So shooting one can be justified.

Personally, unless I'm somehow moved to pass on the creature or have no means to take it cleanly, I don't see the issue, but that's me and I'm really no different than anyone else. My biggest concern would be to be sure I didn't shoot a guy in a monkey suit or a hunter in a Ghillie suit. Jeez, I know of many instances where hunters didn't make sure they identified their intended targets and either shot a human or almost shot another human. I have no experience in what a Bigfoot looks like but I've been told they look more human than ape, this could be the reason the two guy passed on the shot.

Now I suppose we can debate the finer points of morality, but it's going to be up to the individual to make the call when and if the opportunity arises. Then too, suppose I do take a Bigfoot and it lives up to the supposed legend that it's between seven and nine feet tall and between 600 and 100o pounds, how am I going to get that sucker out of the woods? I'd likely, remove the head, hands and feet immediately then return for the rest of the carcass with sufficient help or equipment to get it out.

No worries, Mate. Due to Bigfoot being so adaptable and omnipresent you could just as easily bag one in your own backyard, or hit it with your Hummer and then just call a Tow Truck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, it seems they pop up everywhere except where people are actually looking for them.

I recall one guy claiming he encountered one in a dumpster. Wonder if it was a "Squatchy" dumpster?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, it seems they pop up everywhere except where people are actually looking for them.

That’s not entirely accurate – quite a bit of amateur research devoted to Bigfoot involves ongoing investigations of claims of habituation and/or repeated activity in the woods behind people’s houses (often behind the researcher’s own house or that of an acquaintance).

Furthermore, many amateur researchers in group- and/or solo-expeditions frequently report Bigfoot activity – from suspicions that Bigfoot is in the vicinity to full-blown reports of Bigfoot physical aggression.

The evidence for Bigfoot should be excellent and overwhelming…

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That’s not entirely accurate – quite a bit of amateur research devoted to Bigfoot involves ongoing investigations of claims of habituation and/or repeated activity in the woods behind people’s houses (often behind the researcher’s own house or that of an acquaintance).

Furthermore, many amateur researchers in group- and/or solo-expeditions frequently report Bigfoot activity – from suspicions that Bigfoot is in the vicinity to full-blown reports of Bigfoot physical aggression.

The evidence for Bigfoot should be excellent and overwhelming…

Yes, they should be able to walk one down to the local University Science Lab, by now.

Reading the tales and watching the videos about habituation experiences is -- there are no words, you just have to read 'em and watch 'em. Extremely "bizzare" to put it nicely.

They do nothing for the believers' cause.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, it seems they pop up everywhere except where people are actually looking for them.

I recall one guy claiming he encountered one in a dumpster. Wonder if it was a "Squatchy" dumpster?

Hmmm. Is it possible to fashion a deadfall trap out of a dumpster?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No bigfoot has ever been documented running or taking 15 foot strides.

The nose and mouth of bigfoot have never been documented as having any kind of morphology at all.

The wide shoulders of bigfoot have never been documented.

There has never been any evidence that bigfoot has hands or fingers.

Bears so have a well documented and repeatedly observed stench which is well known and accepted as true to wildlife biologists who manage bear populations, or study bears.

The stench of bigfoot has never been documented.

So, to sum up, the hands, fingers, eyes, nose, shoulders, and stench of bigfoot have never, ever, not one single time, been documented, nor has any evidence whatsoever, not one single piece, been collected that supports the existence of those things either.

We know that bears have a stench and a snout-like nose and claws and narrow shoulders for one reason... they are real, and as such, can be documented, repeatedly observed and those observations documented, and evidence for these things has been, continues to be, and will be, collected and further documented.

Negnosis, I am sure none of the above were "documented" to meet your stringent requirements,

otherwise we'd be agreeing that BF exists

Forgot to mention the ear piercing scream.

But I am sure you will say that is misidentification of a sound.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Amazing that the video is so clear and non-shaky.

Funny how bigfoot videos are neither.

You do raise a very good point, Rafterman. But.... (notice there is always a 'but')

1) If all ppl reporting to see a BF were really looking at a bear going bipedal,

why can't they produce one of these pics/vids as well...? looks pretty simple to me.

so guess what,,, these folks reporting to see bigfoot clearly are NOT seeing a bear (in general)

2) So if I can walk down the street and see a dog, I ought to be able to walk down the street and see a BF?

Please! different species behave quite differently. Bears are not really afraid of people, they do not really try to avoid ppl all that much, and in fact are known to attack ppl on occasion.

bigfoots are not bears. if the bigfoot thing is to get out of town just as soon as a person comes within a mile, then that is what they do. trying to blueprint the bigfoot to other animals - even other great apes, and conclude things about bigfoot is not a reliable thing to do, IMO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

You do raise a very good point, Rafterman. But.... (notice there is always a 'but')

1) If all ppl reporting to see a BF were really looking at a bear going bipedal,

why can't they produce one of these pics/vids as well...? looks pretty simple to me.

so guess what,,, these folks reporting to see bigfoot clearly are NOT seeing a bear (in general)

2) So if I can walk down the street and see a dog, I ought to be able to walk down the street and see a BF?

Please! different species behave quite differently. Bears are not really afraid of people, they do not really try to avoid ppl all that much, and in fact are known to attack ppl on occasion.

bigfoots are not bears. if the bigfoot thing is to get out of town just as soon as a person comes within a mile, then that is what they do. trying to blueprint the bigfoot to other animals - even other great apes, and conclude things about bigfoot is not a reliable thing to do, IMO

--Since all or most bigfoot images are too blurry to see a bigfoot couldn't they be too blurry to also see that it is a bear in the photo?

--But "the bigfoot thing is to get out of town just as soon as a person comes within a mile" that's just it. People are encountering bigfoot all the time, everywhere. Luring them in, "communicating" with them, almost running them over. They don't seem to me to fear encountering humans.

--As far as bears not being afraid of people, I am no expert on bears but, people see body, full face views of bigfoot. When I lived in bear country I'd be lucky to catch a 10" patch of furry butt as it took off. But that is just my experience.

Edited by QuiteContrary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

Someone might have already thought of this, but I just thought that there might be an unknown species of bear living in the USA. They look almost identical to normal bears and that is why no one suspects anything. The major difference is that they can stand up and walk about on their hind legs for long periods of time. This is why people think they have seen a bigfoot, but in fact they have seen a walking bear.

If not an unknown species of bear then a small group that have learnt to walk. It is possible as small groups of animals sometimes learn a new trait that only the group they are in know about. Like certain apes using sticks to get insects out of holes.

I came to this same idea some time ago. If no bigfoot bones are found, then there is no bigfoot. But, if bear bones are found, maybe bigfoot is a bear. A fully bipedal bear would probably show up due to muscular and skeletal changes that would be required. But a long legged bear might go practically unremarked. Especially if it was not a different species, but perhaps a recessive genetic birth defect.

Also there are were the family of short faced bears, which had much longer legs then modern bears. Long legs + short face = bigfoot?

Arctodus (Greek, "bear tooth") — known as the short-faced bear or bulldog bear — is an extinct genus of bear endemic to North America during the Pleistocene ~3.0 Ma.—11,000 years ago, existing for approximately three million years. Arctodus simus may have once been Earth's largest mammalian, terrestrial carnivore. It was the most common of early North American bears, being most abundant in California.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

--Since all or most bigfoot images are too blurry to see a bigfoot couldn't they be too blurry to also see that it is a bear in the photo?

Do you have to make this so difficult lol!

I suppose if it is too blurry you cannot identify it. my point was if all vids are of a bear it would be just a question of time before one of them is clear. but that is not the case, I guess.

and what do you do with vids of a big, blurry animal image taken in an area of north america where no bears exist?

--But "the bigfoot thing is to get out of town just as soon as a person comes within a mile" that's just it. People are encountering bigfoot all the time, everywhere. Luring them in, "communicating" with them, almost running them over. They don't seem to me to fear encountering humans.

ppl do "encounter" BFs, yes, but not closely very often. and the encounter never seems to last more than a few fleeting seconds, as the creature darts off into the woods.

--As far as bears not being afraid of people, I am no expert on bears but, people see body, full face views of bigfoot. When I lived in bear country I'd be lucky to catch a 10" patch of furry butt as it took off. But that is just my experience.

Bears can get quite forward and if a bear is determined to rummage through your garbage or trash bin, you ain't going to scare him off - at least not with your mere presence.

that does not seem to be the case with BF. ppl see one, but not for very long

PS: I just of this aspect. One may get the impression that BF sightings are more common because those sightings really get attention. what excitement is there to a "bear sighting"?

I think in reality, bear sightings are far far more common than BFs, no?

Edited by Earl.Of.Trumps

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.